IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/hlthec/v22y2013i4p480-485.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Preferences For The Normative Basis Of Health Care Priority Setting: Some Evidence From Two Countries

Author

Listed:
  • Jan Abel Olsen
  • Jeff Richardson

Abstract

The present paper concerns the criteria people would prefer for prioritising health programmes. It differs from most empirical studies as subjects were not asked about their personal preferences for programmes per se. Rather, they were asked about the principles that should guide the choice of programmes. Four different principles were framed as arguments for alternative programmes. The results from population surveys in Australia and Norway suggest that people are least supportive of the principle that decision makers should follow the stated preferences of the public. Rather, respondents expressed more support for decisions based upon health maximisation, equality and urgency. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Suggested Citation

  • Jan Abel Olsen & Jeff Richardson, 2013. "Preferences For The Normative Basis Of Health Care Priority Setting: Some Evidence From Two Countries," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(4), pages 480-485, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:22:y:2013:i:4:p:480-485
    DOI: 10.1002/hec.2805
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.2805
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/hec.2805?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lancsar, Emily & Wildman, John & Donaldson, Cam & Ryan, Mandy & Baker, Rachel, 2011. "Deriving distributional weights for QALYs through discrete choice experiments," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 466-478, March.
    2. Richard D. Smith, 2003. "Construction of the contingent valuation market in health care:a critical assessment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(8), pages 609-628, August.
    3. Andrew J Lloyd, 2003. "Threats to the estimation of benefit: are preference elicitation methods accurate?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(5), pages 393-402, May.
    4. ALan Williams, 1988. "Priority setting in public and private health care: a guide through the ideological jungle," Working Papers 036chedp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    5. McKie, John & Richardson, Jeff, 2003. "The Rule of Rescue," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 56(12), pages 2407-2419, June.
    6. Williams, Alan, 1988. "Priority setting in public and private health care : A guide through the ideological jungle," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(2), pages 173-183, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mwabu, Germano, 1990. "Financing health services in Africa : an assessment of alternative approaches," Policy Research Working Paper Series 457, The World Bank.
    2. Richard D. Smith, 2007. "The role of 'reference goods' in contingent valuation: should we help respondents to 'construct' their willingness to pay?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(12), pages 1319-1332.
    3. Mandy Ryan, 1994. "Agency in Health Care: Lessons for Economists from Sociologists," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(2), pages 207-217, April.
    4. Olsen, Jan Abel & Donaldson, Cam & Shackley, Phil, 2005. "Implicit versus explicit ranking: On inferring ordinal preferences for health care programmes based on differences in willingness-to-pay," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(5), pages 990-996, September.
    5. Whitty, Jennifer A. & Littlejohns, Peter, 2015. "Social values and health priority setting in Australia: An analysis applied to the context of health technology assessment," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(2), pages 127-136.
    6. Virginia Wiseman & Craig Mitton & Mary M. Doyle‐Waters & Tom Drake & Lesong Conteh & Anthony T. Newall & Obinna Onwujekwe & Stephen Jan, 2016. "Using Economic Evidence to Set Healthcare Priorities in Low‐Income and Lower‐Middle‐Income Countries: A Systematic Review of Methodological Frameworks," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(S1), pages 140-161, February.
    7. Crawshaw, Lauren & Fèvre, Sonia & Kaesombath, Lampheuy & Sivilai, Bounlerth & Boulom, Sayvisene & Southammavong, Fongsamouth, 2014. "Lessons from an Integrated Community Health Education Initiative in Rural Laos," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 487-502.
    8. van Exel, Job & Baker, Rachel & Mason, Helen & Donaldson, Cam & Brouwer, Werner, 2015. "Public views on principles for health care priority setting: Findings of a European cross-country study using Q methodology," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 128-137.
    9. Neil J. Buckley & Katherine Cuff & Jeremiah Hurley & Logan McLeod & Robert Nuscheler & David Cameron, 2012. "Willingness‐to‐pay for parallel private health insurance: evidence from a laboratory experiment," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 45(1), pages 137-166, February.
    10. Shiell, Alan, 1997. "Health outcomes are about choices and values: an economic perspective on the health outcomes movement," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 5-15, January.
    11. Brandt, Sylvia J & Vasquez Lavin, Felipe & Hanemann, W. Michael, 2008. "Designing contingent valuation scenarios for environmental health: The case of childhood asthma," Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley, Working Paper Series qt4ht2k0ch, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley.
    12. Emily Lancsar & Peter Burge, 2014. "Choice modelling research in health economics," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 28, pages 675-687, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    13. David Whynes & Emma Frew & Jane Wolstenholme, 2005. "Willingness-to-Pay and Demand Curves: A Comparison of Results Obtained Using Different Elicitation Formats," International Journal of Health Economics and Management, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 369-386, December.
    14. Brandt, Sylvia J. & Lavin, Felipe Vasquez & Hanemann, W. Michael, 2008. "Designing contingent valuation scenarios for environmental health: The case of childhood asthma," CUDARE Working Papers 47077, University of California, Berkeley, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    15. Franken, Margreet & Stolk, Elly & Scharringhausen, Tessa & de Boer, Anthonius & Koopmanschap, Marc, 2015. "A comparative study of the role of disease severity in drug reimbursement decision making in four European countries," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(2), pages 195-202.
    16. Alan Williams, 1997. "Intergenerational Equity: An Exploration of the ‘Fair Innings’ Argument," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 6(2), pages 117-132, March.
    17. Di Matteo, Livio, 2000. "The determinants of the public-private mix in Canadian health care expenditures: 1975-1996," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 87-112, June.
    18. Maynard, A., 2014. "Contracting for Quality in the NHS," Monographs, Office of Health Economics, number 000073.
    19. Vick, Sandra & Scott, Anthony, 1998. "Agency in health care. Examining patients' preferences for attributes of the doctor-patient relationship," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(5), pages 587-605, October.
    20. Richard D. Smith, 2007. "The role of ‘reference goods’ in contingent valuation: should we help respondents to ‘construct’ their willingness to pay?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(12), pages 1319-1332, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:22:y:2013:i:4:p:480-485. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.